sandfly wrote: Franklin they all are serviced by trucks, don't let it fool ya the one pumping over the mtn. will be serviced by trucks on top. Its not just feeding one well but lots of them in the surrounding area.

Understood. It's still better to move the trucks away from stream side. All those trucks coming up to the stream bank causes a lot of erosion. In addition they are older trucks in marginal state of repair. I bet there is a lot of oil on the ground in the areas they frequent. Spilled engine and lubricating oil is one of the most listed violations when they inspect well sites per the DEP inspection reports.

As long as some common sense is used during drought periods and the overall cumulative affect is considered when handing out withdraw permits the stream can support a fair number of wells without noticing the withdraws.

When the all mighty dollar is at work and we dont have the resources to monitor these activities.....what are the chances of environmental common sense by the industry?

As long as some common sense is used during drought periods and the overall cumulative affect is considered when handing out withdraw permits the stream can support a fair number of wells without noticing the withdraws.

When the all mighty dollar is at work and we dont have the resources to monitor these activities.....what are the chances of environmental common sense by the industry?

Common sense to them helps the bottom line.

It's the permitting processes that requires some common sense. I don't expect driller A at the top of Pine to know what driller B at the lower end is doing. The sum withdrawl on any given day is where any real impact comes, not any single location except in very severe drought.

If the permitting process does not take into account the cumulative effect then it needs to be amended. I've heard conflicting stories about the processes and it seems they vary by major watershed.

franklin wrote:We have shown the math to calculate water withdrawal impacts in previous threads. In summary about 995 million gallons flowed by the Waterville gauge in the last 24 hours. If a driller withdrew 6 million gallons today for well fracking less than 0.7% of the water would have been removed.

We who?

And you are assuming one well. We have already established there will be multiple wells at 6million gallons per. 995 million, if that is accurate, in early may during a very wet spring will be much different when the stream is running at less than half of that or 1/10th of that.

franklin wrote:We have shown the math to calculate water withdrawal impacts in previous threads. In summary about 995 million gallons flowed by the Waterville gauge in the last 24 hours. If a driller withdrew 6 million gallons today for well fracking less than 0.7% of the water would have been removed.

We who?

And you are assuming one well. We have already established there will be multiple wells at 6million gallons per. 995 million, if that is accurate, in early may during a very wet spring will be much different when the stream is running at less than half of that or 1/10th of that.

Myself, gone4day, I believe pcray was involved in related threads, and some others. Somewhere in the archives there is at least one thread that shows the math involved.

As I indicated above it's the cumulative effect that needs to be managed. And yes, when flows drop to summertime levels the total withdraw should be further limited. There should be a minimum level at which point all withdraws would stop until flows increase. There are a number of ways formulas to determine acceptable withdraw rates could be managed. I believe there were some suggestions in previous threads on the topic.

Myself, gone4day, I believe pcray was involved in related threads, and some others. Somewhere in the archives there is at least one thread that shows the math involved.

As I indicated above it's the cumulative effect that needs to be managed. And yes, when flows drop to summertime levels the total withdraw should be further limited. There should be a minimum level at which point all withdraws would stop until flows increase. There are a number of ways formulas to determine acceptable withdraw rates could be managed. I believe there were some suggestions in previous threads on the topic. [/quote]

See, at least you use the word "should". I wonder if the drilling companies will.

I don't think that taking the number of wells being drilled at one time and multiplying it by the amount of water needed per well is an accurate way of determining the possible inpact on the water level of the given stream or river. You have to understand that each well site in the Pine Creek Valley is at a different stage of the drilling process. That means that all of the well sites will not be fracking at the same time. Some might frack this summer at different times. But, some might not frack until this fall or winter. Also, since Pine Creek is mostly a stocked stream for over 2/3rds of its length, the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

TYoung wrote: the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

unless of course you were a fly or spin fisherman and bugs and other food sources for fish are worth keeping.

the effects of any fish kill would only last until they stocked more trout the next year. Pine Creek most years gets too warm for trout by the time the water gets low enough for any problems to accure.

so the hell with the rest of the life that the creek supports? honestly?? this may be the most short-sighted thing I've ever read here.

The conditions of any water withdrawal permit limit the total maximum that can be withdrawn per day and has nothing to do with the total number of wells the site serves.

Every permit has a minimum stream flow number assigned to it based on total flow to a particular withdrawal location. Once the stream falls to this level, all water withdrawals need to stop. Not "should" stop, must stop.

The SRBC monitors the stream withdrawals and take into account the total withdrawal amount for a particular watershed.

pennsangler wrote:The conditions of any water withdrawal permit limit the total maximum that can be withdrawn per day and has nothing to do with the total number of wells the site serves.

Every permit has a minimum stream flow number assigned to it based on total flow to a particular withdrawal location. Once the stream falls to this level, all water withdrawals need to stop. Not "should" stop, must stop.

The SRBC monitors the stream withdrawals and take into account the total withdrawal amount for a particular watershed.

I used the term should because I don't know the specifics of the permitting process and wasn't sure if they had a minimum flow at which they stopped withdraws. It sounds as if the SRBC is managing the water withdraws properly.

Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:49:29Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:50:15Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:51:37Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:55:12Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:56:06Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:57:32Edited by franklin on 2011/5/15 22:59:15